upworthy

art

History (Education)

10 fascinating facts about Vincent van Gogh and his famous 'Starry Night' painting

Most of us know bits and pieces about the man and his art, but likely don't have the full picture.

Vincent van Gogh is famous for his striking colors and bold brush strokes.

If you were to ask people to name famous paintings, Vincent van Gogh's "The Starry Night" would surely be among the top answers. The swirling blue and yellow sky is one of the most recognizable works of Western art, and van Gogh is a household name even among people who aren't big art connoisseurs.

Most of us know a little bit about van Gogh due to the dramatic story of him cutting off his own ear. But there's also a lot of lore and legend ranging in accuracy about the man and his art, so it's worth doing a dive into some true fascinating facts about both. A video from Great Art Explained provides a concise but comprehensive overview of who he was and how he worked, giving us a bigger picture of the legend as well as his most famous piece.

 

    - YouTube     www.youtube.com    

 

Here are some facts the average person might not know about Vincent van Gogh :

Van Gogh didn't start painting until his late 20s and only painted for a decade.

For such a famous artist, van Gogh didn't paint for very long. He didn't seriously begin painting until around age 27, but he dedicated himself fully to his art until he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest at age 37. Still, his prolific talent was legendary, as he created some 900 paintings , and over 2,000 pieces of art overall, during his decade of work. He had just begun being recognized for his artistic talents when he died, and most of his famous paintings were created in his final two years of life.

Van Gogh spent time in a mental institution, but it wasn't your typical asylum experience.

In 1889, van Gogh was admitted into a mental asylum outside Saint Remy, France. But unlike the overcrowded public mental institutions in large cities, the small asylum only had 41 patients and was run by a progressive doctor who believed in treating mentally ill people with kindness and understanding. Art and nature were seen as healing, and doctors quickly realized that van Gogh wouldn't survive if he didn't have the freedom to paint and create. He spent all of his waking hours painting and created many of his most well-known works—including "The Starry Night"—while gazing out his barred asylum window at the beautiful countryside dotted with olive groves and vineyards or wandering the purposefully planted gardens.

  vincent van gogh, painting, art, irises, master   Van Gogh painted "Irises" while he as at the Saint Remy asylum.   upload.wikimedia.org    

Most of the time, he was perfectly lucid and rational.

Today, van Gogh would likely be diagnosed with bipolar disorder , and his behavior during manic episodes—like cutting off his own ear and giving it to a prostitute—have planted in people's minds a picture of van Gogh as a crazed lunatic. However, he was actually lucid and rational most of the time. Not only that, but he was intelligent and extremely well-read, spoke four languages, and had lifelong friends as well as a close relationship with his brother and sister-in-law. The history-defining ear incident was not his usual modus operandi. In fact, the video notes that he was "probably the sanest patient at St. Remy."

He also had syphilis.

This fact can't really be separated from his mental illness challenges, as syphilis can cause psychiatric problems.

  theo van gogh, vincent van gogh brother, art history, illness, health   Theo van Gogh, Vincent's younger brother, helped support him throughout his life. Public Domain  

Van Gogh's brother Theo was his biggest supporter.

Throughout his life, van Gogh's younger brother Theo supported him in every way: financially, emotionally, and artistically. An art dealer himself, Theo encouraged his brother to develop his painting skills. Theo paid for Vincent's treatment at the asylum and was also the one who insisted he be able to paint there. Much of what we know about van Gogh comes from letters he wrote to Theo, and the two shared a close bond. Theo was with Vincent when he died, two days after shooting himself in the chest. Theo, who also had syphilis, would die just six month later from the effects of the disease.

Van Gogh's "The Starry Night" was influenced by Japanese art.

Like many of his Western colleagues at the time, van Gogh was influenced by art from Japan, and many of his paintings reflect elements of Japanese prints. He was an admirer of Hokusai's "The Great Wave Off Kanagawa," and it's not a stretch to see how it may have inspired the swirl pattern and blue colors of "The Starry Night."

  the great wave, japanes painting, kanagawa, hakusai, van gogh, the starry night   Hokusai's "The Great Wave Off Kanagawa" and van Gogh's "The Starry Night" Photo credit: Canva

Van Gogh tried to poison himself with paints and turpentine a few weeks before painting "The Starry Night."

The bright colors that marked the last five years of van Gogh's art also nearly took his life. New techniques in creating pigments in paints led to a dramatic shift from dark, brooding paintings to bright, colorful ones as van Gogh entered his peak years. But his mental health also took dramatic turns, and prior to painting "The Starry Night" in 1889, medical notes from the asylum indicate that he drank paint and turpentine as a suicide attempt.

Van Gogh became very religious but eventually lost his faith in Christianity.

Van Gogh was raised by a Christian minister father and developed a deep religious faith, even becoming an evangelical preacher himself for a time. But later his relationship with religion morphed into a belief that the divine was expressed in nature, art, and human emotion rather than the church.

Van Gogh considered "The Starry Night" a failure.

With his standards for himself set impossibly high, van Gogh felt that many of his paintings were failures, including, apparently, "The Starry Night." He wrote to fellow painter Emile Bernard several months after painting it, "I have been slaving away on nature the whole year, hardly thinking of impressionism or of this, that and the other. And yet, once again I let myself go reaching for stars that are too big—a new failure—and I have had enough of it."

Van Gogh was entirely wrong about his own legacy.

Less than two months before his suicide in 1890, van Gogh wrote to a critic who had praised his work in a Paris newspaper, "It is absolutely certain that I shall never do important things. " Though he had started to see some success as an artist, there was no inkling that he would become one of the most famous and iconic artists of all time. If he had lived, he might have seen the full recognition of his artistic genius in his lifetime or he may not have. But as it was, he died believing himself to be an insignificant failure.

There may be many lessons we can glean from van Gogh's story, but perhaps the biggest is to not discount our own talents, skills, or contributions. Like him, we may not be seeing the full picture.

Art

It took 14 years and 380 global embroiders to make one stunningly meaningful dress

A truly multicultural art project with style touches from 51 different countries.

Photos courtesy of The Red Dress project
Embroiderer Lekazia Turner wearing The Red Dress.

Few things bring people together more beautifully than art . Whether it's music , sculpture, paint or fabric, the arts are a way for us to express ourselves, our cultures and our common humanity . But rarely do we witness one singular piece of art truly encapsulating the creativity of our human family .

At first glance, the dress created for the Red Dress project is quite obviously stunning. It looks as though it could be worn by a royal—though a royal from where? The style, colors and patterns of the dress don't shout any particular country or culture; in fact, we can point to different elements of it and say it looks like it belongs on any continent.

There's a reason for that. The dress is made out of 84 pieces of burgundy silk dupion, which spent 14 years being sent around the world to be embroidered by 380 people from 51 countries—a truly global, multicultural creation.

Of those 380 embroiderers, about a third were commissioned artisans who were paid for their work and receive a portion of all ongoing exhibition fees. The rest were volunteers who contributed their stitches at events in various countries. Approximately 97% of the embroiderers were female.

British textile artist Kirstie Macleod conceived the project in 2009 as "an investigation into identity, with a desire to connect with women from the around without borders and boundaries." The basic design started as a sketch on the back of a napkin and has grown into a tangible garment that is not only a gorgeous work of art but a platform for women around the world and from all walks of life to express themselves a nd have their voices heard.

As shared on the project's website :

"Embroiderers include female refugees from Palestine and Syria, women seeking asylum in the UK from Iraq, China, Nigeria and Namibia, victims of war in Kosovo, Rwanda, and DR Congo; impoverished women in South Africa, Mexico, and Egypt; individuals in Kenya, Japan, Turkey, Sweden, Peru, Czech Republic, Dubai, Afghanistan, Australia, Argentina, Swi tzerland, Canada, Tobago, Vietnam, Estonia, USA, Russia, Pakistan, Wales, Colombia and England, students from Montenegro, Brazil, Malta, Singapore, Eritrea, Norway, Poland, Finland, Ireland, Romania and Hong Kong as well as upmarket embroidery studios in India and Saudi Arabia."

On Instagram , Kirstie Macleod shared a panel of the dress that was embroidered by two women in Kosovo, who shared some of their reflections on their experiences in the war there.

They stitched words into the birds they embroidered:

"Better one winter in your own country than a hundred springs away."

"The greatest wealth is to live content with little."

"Freedom has come. Love yourself first."

"Love all. Trust some. Hate none."

"A winter is a winter. Be nice, everyone."

"We live in peace now."

The creation of the dress began in 2009 and was completed in 2023. Each woman embroidered a piece of her own story into the dress, which contains millions of stitches. From established professional artisans to first-time embroiderers, the women were encouraged to share something that expressed their personal identities as well as their cultures. Some used traditional embroidery styles that had been practiced for hundreds of years where they are from. Others stitched in meaningful elements of their life stories. Some of the women are also using textile work to rebuild their live s and earn a consistent living.

The dress is on tour, being displayed in museums and galleries around the world. The photos showing women of various ages and ethnicities wearing the dress are made all the more moving knowing the history of how and by whom it was made.

In May 2025, a book detailing the dress's creation and journey around the world was published and can be found here.

Absolutely stunning. What a wonderful idea to connect women in a way that lets them share their stories and showcases and beautifully honors them.

This article first appeared three years ago and has been updated.

The Minnesota state photograph "Grace" by Eric Enstrom depicts traveling salesman Charles Wilden in Bovey, Minnesota.

One of the most popular pieces of 20th-century American art is a painting of an old devout man praying over a bowl of gruel and a loaf of bread in front of a Bible . The piece is called “Grace,” and it can be found in homes, churches, and even restaurants.

I clearly remember a copy hanging on the wall at my corner burger joint, Mack’s Burgers, in Torrance, California , in the ’80s. Sadly, it’s been torn down and is now a Jack in the Box . However ubiquitous the photo may be, a new video by pop culture YouTube user Austin McConnell shows that “Grace” isn’t really what it seems.

“Grace” was originally a photograph taken in 1918, during World War I , by Eric Enstrom, a Swedish American from Bovey, Minnesota. Enstrom was preparing some photographs to take with him to a convention when Charles Wilden, a salesman selling boot scrapers, came to his door, and he know he had to take his photo.

“There was something about the old gentleman’s face that immediately impressed me. I saw that he had a kind face… there weren’t any harsh lines in it,” Enstrom said. “I wanted to take a picture that would show people that even though they had to do without many things because of the war they still had much to be thankful for,” he added.

    - YouTube     www.youtube.com    

“There was something about the old gentleman’s face that immediately impressed me. I saw that he had a kind face… there weren’t any harsh lines in it,” Enstrom said. “I wanted to take a picture that would show people that even though they had to do without many things because of the war they still had much to be thankful for,” he added.

Enstrom posed Wilden in front of a loaf of bread, a bowl—which may have been empty—and a large book that many assume to be the Bible. But, as McConnell notes, the book is far too large to be the good book, as most people assume. The Grand Forks Herald claims that a receipt for payment from Enstrom to Wilden reveals that the book is a dictionary.

The photograph went on to be a huge hit at the convention, and Enstrom began selling copies about town. After many requested copies of the photo in color, Enstrom’s daughter, Rhoda Nyberg, began hand-painting them in oils and added a streak of light on the left side of the painting. This is the version that people have come to love.


 


"The intent of the photo is fairly obvious,” McConnell says in the video. “Enstrom wanted an image that conveyed to people that even though they had to do without many provisions because of the ongoing war, there was still much to be thankful for. A picture that seemed to say 'this man doesn't have much of earthly goods, but he has more than most people because he has a thankful heart.'"

Enstrom convinced Wilden to sign over his rights for $5, which gave him the sole copyright. He then licensed the image to the Lutheran-affiliated Augsburg publishing house, which distributed the image across the country. According to McConnell “thousands and thousands” of copies of the photo were sold. The image entered the public domain in 1995.


 


Although not much is known about Wilden, it is believed that he lived a hard life. "He was living in a very primitive sod hut near Grand Rapids, eking out a very precarious living," retired history professor Don Boese told the Grand Forks Herald. It’s also likely that he wasn’t the devout man we imagine in the photo. "The stories about him centered more around drinking and not accomplishing very much,” Boese said.

So the painting was actually a photo. The Bible, a dictionary, and the subject was more likely to be the town drunk than a saint. But, in the end, does it matter? McConnell believes that its meaning rests in the eye of the beholder.

"If you found out today that everything you thought you knew about this iconic image was actually wrong, would you take it off your wall?” McConnell asks at the end of the video. “Or would you accept that the value in a piece of art isn't merely derived from the knowledge of how it was made? Or who made it?”

Come to think of it, the fact that the man in the painting is an alcoholic may make the painting even more profound. For a person who is down on their luck and may have turned their back on religion, having a moment to be grateful for the small things in life is a wonderful sentiment. It goes to show that anyone can turn their life around. When someone down on their luck is given a second chance, it's one of the most powerful examples of grace.

This article originally appeared three years ago.

via Public Domain

Photos from the 1800s were so serious.

If you've ever perused photographs from the 19th and early 20th century , you've likely noticed how serious everyone looked. If there's a hint of a smile at all, it's oh-so-slight, but more often than not, our ancestors looked like they were sitting for a sepia-toned mug shot or being held for ransom or something. Why didn't people smile in photographs ? Was life just so hard back then that nobody smiled? Were dour, sour expressions just the norm?

Most often, people's serious faces in old photographs are blamed on the long exposure time of early cameras, and that's true. Taking a photo was not an instant event like it is now; people had to sit still for many minutes in the 1800s to have their photo taken.

Ever try holding a smile for only one full minute? It's surprisingly difficult and very quickly becomes unnatural. A smile is a quick reaction, not a constant state of expression. Even people we think of as "smiley" aren't toting around full-toothed smiles for minutes on end. When you had to be still for several minutes to get your photo taken , there was just no way you were going to hold a smile for that long.

But there are other reasons besides long exposure times that people didn't smile in early photographs.


  mona lisa, leonardo da vinci, classic paintings, famous smiles, art   "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci, painted in 1503 Public domain

The non-smiling precedent had already been set by centuries of painted portraits

The long exposure times for early photos may have contributed to serious facial expressions, but so did the painted portraits that came before them. Look at all of the portraits of famous people throughout history prior to cameras. Sitting to be painted took hours, so smiling was out of the question. Other than the smallest of lip curls like the Mona Lisa, people didn't smile for painted portraits, so why would people suddenly think it normal to flash their pearly whites (which were not at all pearly white back then) for a photographed one? It simply wasn't how it was done.

A smirk? Sometimes. A full-on smile? Practically never.

  old photos, black and white photos, algerian immigrant, turban,   Algerian immigrant to the United States. Photographed on Ellis Island by Augustus F. Sherman. via William Williams/Wikimedia Commons

Smiling usually indicated that you were a fool or a drunkard

Our perceptions of smiling have changed dramatically since the 1800s. In explaining why smiling was considered taboo in portraits and early photos, art historian Nicholas Jeeves wrote in Public Domain Review :

"Smiling also has a large number of discrete cultural and historical significances, few of them in line with our modern perceptions of it being a physical signal of warmth, enjoyment, or indeed of happiness. By the 17th century in Europe it was a well-established fact that the only people who smiled broadly, in life and in art, were the poor, the lewd, the drunk, the innocent, and the entertainment […] Showing the teeth was for the upper classes a more-or-less formal breach of etiquette."

  drunks, classic painting, owls, malle babbe, paintings   "Malle Babbe" by Frans Hals, sometime between 1640 and 1646 Public domain


In other words, to the Western sensibility, smiling was seen as undignified. If a painter did put a smile on the subject of a portrait, it was a notable departure from the norm, a deliberate stylistic choice that conveyed something about the artist or the subject.

Even the artists who attempted it had less-than-ideal results. It turns out that smiling is such a lively, fleeting expression that the artistically static nature of painted portraits didn't lend itself well to showcasing it. Paintings that did have subjects smiling made them look weird or disturbing or drunk. Simply put, painting a genuine, natural smile didn't work well in portraits of old.

As a result, the perception that smiling was an indication of lewdness or impropriety stuck for quite a while, even after Kodak created snapshot cameras that didn't have the long exposure time problem. Even happy occasions had people nary a hint of joy in the photographs that documented them.

Another reason why people didn't smile in old photos is that dental hygiene wasn't the same as it is today, and people may have been self-conscious about their teeth. “People had lousy teeth, if they had teeth at all, which militated against opening your mouth in social settings,” Angus Trumble, the director of the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra, Australia, and author of A Brief History of the Smile, said, according to Time.


 

  wedding party photo, wedding, old weddings, black and white, serious photos, no smiles   Even wedding party photos didn't appear to be joyful occasions. Wikimedia Commons


Then along came movies, which may have changed the whole picture

So how did we end up coming around to grinning ear to ear for photos? Interestingly enough, it may have been the advent of motion pictures that pushed us towards smiling being the norm.

Photos could have captured people's natural smiles earlier—we had the technology for taking instant photos—but culturally, smiling wasn't widely favored for photos until the 1920s. One theory about that timing is that the explosion of movies enabled us to see emotions of all kinds playing out on screen, documenting the fleeting expressions that portraits had failed to capture. Culturally, it became normalized to capture, display and see all kind of emotions on people's faces. As we got more used to that, photo portraits began portraying people in a range of expression rather than trying to create a neutral image of a person's face.

Changing our own perceptions of old photo portraits to view them as neutral rather than grumpy or serious can help us remember that people back then were not a bunch of sourpusses, but people who experienced as wide a range of emotion as we do, including joy and mirth. Unfortunately, we just rarely get to see them in that state before the 1920s.

This article originally appeared last year.